| |||||||||||||
UserLinux Moves ForwardUserLinux Moves ForwardPosted Feb 5, 2004 6:58 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)Parent article: UserLinux Moves Forward
I don't understand the reasoning of Bruce with regard to KDE.
(Log in to post comments)
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 9:04 UTC (Thu) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] UserLinux wanted to chose ONE desktop as a default. With two very good desktops available one has to make a (hard!) choice. There are no deciding technological arguments, so it is just the licensing issue (LGPL vs. GPL) that was decisive, sorry for the KDE people.Anyone is free to create a KDE4UserLinux.deb. You are free to run KDE on your desktop. But we shouldn't force our preferences on others.
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 14:59 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link] > UserLinux wanted to chose ONE desktop as a default.It's not about the default desktop, it's about excluding any Qt/KDE *applications* from UserLinux (k3b, kdevelop, quanta, scribus, ...). > But we shouldn't force our preferences on others. Yes, exactly. They chose (ok, Bruce decided) not to support Qt/KDE (although now he does), so they try to force their preferences on others. Hmm, kinda weird to me... Bye Alex
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 19:39 UTC (Thu) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] > It's not about the default desktop, it's about excluding any Qt/KDE*applications* from UserLinux (k3b, kdevelop, quanta, scribus, ...). It's about keeping the number of packages down, period. Less to support. > Yes, exactly. They chose (ok, Bruce decided) not to support Qt/KDE For clarification, this comment is referring to UserLinux. > (although now he does), For clarification, this comment is referring to Perens, LLC. > so they try to force their preferences on others. No. People are free to add to their systems whatever they wish. It's generally easier to add things than remove them, or so has been my experience with Linux distros in general, anyway.
the rumours are true! GTK is LGPL, QT is GPL big difference Posted Feb 5, 2004 18:08 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] GTK does have a less restrictive license than QT. GTK uses the LGPL. This means that I can link it in to a non-free app. If I make any changes to the GTK library then I must make them available but I can keep my app's cource code secret. QT is GPL, so if I link an app to QT, I must distribute it under the GPL or pay TrollTech for a non-GPL license. This makes GTK much more commercial developer friendly. It's not a rumour it's a fact. By the way, I prefer KDE to Gnome so I'm quite happy to see that KDE is going to be supported.
UserLinux Moves Forward Posted Feb 5, 2004 19:19 UTC (Thu) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] When they were corrected (yes, Qt *is* GPL), it was said that Qt would be to expensive for commercial developers (one Qt license on one platform costs much less than one month salary of one developer, while enabling him to produce the same software for three platforms at once).Maybe in Europe... (I understand your primary interest is in KDE and not the goals of UserLinux, you've made this very clear through your actions on the UserLinux mailing list.) -Brock (no KDE or GNOME affiliation)
Commercial support for KDE vs. Integration in UserLinux Posted Feb 5, 2004 19:41 UTC (Thu) by ptr (guest, #5885) [Link] Well, these are two very different things:1) supporting one customer with specific needs in direct exchange for money Usually, it is much easier to provide the first than the second. The UserLinux principle to rather select the (arguably) best solution for every common problem enables it to integrate far better and with less work (in theory). For me this is a convinving argument. Now I hope that they live up to the expectations. If you prefer choice over integration, you can still use Debian itself.
|
|||||||||||||